John Ensign To His Mistress: “I Used You For My Own Pleasure”
Family values Senator John Ensign wrote a letter of apology to his mistress saying, “I used you for my own pleasure….Plain and simple it was wrong; it was a sin.” The letter was given to the Las Vegas Sun by Doug Hampton, the woman’s husband. And Ensign paid Cindy Hampton more than $25,000 in severance when she stopped working for him.
Hampton also detailed a February 2008 meeting in which he, Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., and others encouraged Ensign to end the affair, as well as the working relationship with the Hamptons. Hampton said Coburn and others tried to encourage Ensign to compensate the couple and help them relocate.
“These men were the ones that said, ‘What we need to do is get Doug Hampton’s home paid for, and we need to get Doug Hampton some money. We need to get his family to Colorado,’” Hampton said in the interview.
Invoking the almighty, Ensign said in his letter that he takes “100 percent responsibility for my actions. God never intended for us to do this. I walked away from Him and my relationship with Him has suffered terribly.”
If politicians can’t keep their members zipped up, can they at least stop tossing God and money around?
Earlier reports of the possible severance prompted a Washington watchdog group to file a complaint against Ensign with the Senate Ethics Committee.
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics alleges Ensign may have violated ethics and campaign finance rules by failing to report the payment to Cindy Hampton as an in-kind contribution from his leadership political action committee.
Oh what a PIG!!!!!!
Typical, can’t he just go into a shower and Masturbate..
July 9th, 2009 at 11:21 am
Tactless, and atrocious handwriting to boot!
Penmanship has slipped quite a bit since we founded our country! Especially when you consider how low the literacy rate was 230 years ago.
I want a reporter to ask him, “You opened your Febuary 2008 letter to Cindy by stating it was the most important letter you’ve ever written. Does it still stand as the most important thing you’ve written? And if not, did you write something more important since? Or were you being insincere when you closed the letter “sincerely?”
Bonus douchebag points for invoking God in the manner that he did.
July 9th, 2009 at 11:26 am
Well, at least he didn’t send it by email. lol.
Kregg Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 10:35 pm
Epi said: Well, at least he didn’t send it by email. lol.
K: I hear that “Dear John” letters are common by email nowadays… Seems a little impersonal. ;-)
Um Cara Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 10:40 pm
It’s all about sending a text message nowadays, email breakups are so 2007.
Dude.
Kregg Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 10:45 pm
I feel like a dinosaur…
July 9th, 2009 at 11:34 am
Aren’t most mistresses used for personal pleasure? What am I missing here?
Um Cara Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 11:48 am
Not necessarily, the Sanford thing appeared to be love, I’m sure other adulterous relationships are as well.
Rocky the Liberal Rottweiler Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 2:40 am
This idea that use equates to a kind of abuse is such crap. Everybody “uses” everybody else. You don’t interact with people unless you get something out of it.
July 9th, 2009 at 11:38 am
It’s funny how conservatives do bad sht and then invoke God, trying to excuse themselves through Him.
God does not correct your problems for you. Don’t use His name to try and make you look better. Ask Him for forgiveness in private and apologize for your actions to the ones you hurt without trying to make better of yourself by saying now you are with God, but then you weren’t.
Kregg Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 11:58 am
Vegas said; Ask Him for forgiveness in private and apologize for your actions to the ones you hurt without trying to make better of yourself by saying now you are with God, but then you weren’t.
K: Hey, Vegas, this was a PRIVATE letter. I suspect he WAS asking for forgiveness in PRIVATE but some cad made the letter public.
VegasLib Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
It should have been private between the mistress or whoever and Ensign, but Ensign brought God into the mix to make himself look better in the eyes of whoever he was writing the letter to.
That’s a no no.
You and God’s relationship should stay that way. Don’t exploit Him to make yourself look better. Many Cons do. (not saying you do, Kregg)
Kregg Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 12:17 pm
Vegas said: It should have been private between the mistress or whoever and Ensign, but Ensign brought God into the mix to make himself look better in the eyes of whoever he was writing the letter to.
K: Ensign DID keep it private, Vegas. And, if you believe in God why would you NOT ‘bring Him into the mix’ if you felt you’d failed Him and rely on Him for restoration? How do you know what Ensign’s intent was in this private letter?
V; You and God’s relationship should stay that way. Don’t exploit Him to make yourself look better. Many Cons do. (not saying you do, Kregg)
K: Vegas, it may appear that cons are the only ones that ‘do’ but thats because Alan singles them out for his own perverse pleasure in exposing what he considers hypocrisy. And, again, what makes you think Ensign – in a PRIVATE letter to a PRIVATE person whom he is apologizing to is using God to make himself look better?
VegasLib Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
Kregg,
It just seems in Ensingn’s letter that he brings God into it to make himself look better and extract some sympathy from his mistress. If he didn’t mean it for that purpose, then it’s all good. To me, though, that’s what it looks like: “I wasn’t with God, but now I am, so it’s all good.” I can’t dig that. Sorry.
Kregg Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
Vegas said: It just seems in Ensingn’s letter that he brings God into it to make himself look better and extract some sympathy from his mistress.
K: How can possibly get such a meaning from this?! Did you actually read the letter? Where in his letter – what phrases – do you find such a cynical attitude as you assign to him? He’s not asking for sympathy at ALL. He is apologizing, claiming 100% responsibility for his actions, stating that he walked away from God while doing so! Good grief, Vegas, give the guy a break! Just what does he have to do in your mind to be sincere?
V: If he didn’t mean it for that purpose, then it’s all good. To me, though, that’s what it looks like: “I wasn’t with God, but now I am, so it’s all good.” I can’t dig that. Sorry.
K: He clearly and plainly states that he walked away from God and that his relationship with God has suffered for the walking. Thats pure out fact, my friend and if your christian walk with God DOESN’T suffer when you ‘walk away from God’ then you ought to examine your relationship.
K: I don’t see anywhere in the letter where he implies “…but now I am, so it’s all good” either. Please show me where he says or implies this.
K: Vegas, is it possible that your perspective on this guy’s actions are jaded by his political persuasions?
TDro319 Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
K: “Hey, Vegas, this was a PRIVATE letter. I suspect he WAS asking for forgiveness in PRIVATE but some cad made the letter public.”
TD: Pretty careless of him writing a letter that could easily fall into the wrong hands, don’t you think?
jasperjava Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 5:49 pm
Anyone who thinks this letter was written with the intent to keep it private is pretty naive. I’d bet any money this was intentionally leaked. It has that Jimmy Swaggart crocodile tears quality.
July 9th, 2009 at 11:48 am
“…this was a PRIVATE letter.”
Yeah, I just confessed to adultery to avoid being blackmailed, and now I’ve got something to tell my former lover so I’m going to commit this to writing.
And I start off by telling the woman it’s the most important letter I’ve ever written.
And then I tell her, in this letter, that what we did was wrong. Like I never told her this before. Like I never said anything like this in explaining to her previously how come we’re not screwing any more.
This letter had no purpose except to end up a part of the public record.
Kregg Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
And, I’ll bet he contracted with the cuckolded husband to provide it for publication. Good thinkin’, Rock!
Rocky the Liberal Rottweiler Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 2:45 am
Well, if you must know, I’m still waiting to hear what Doug and Darlene were doing while John and Cindy were off drilling for oil.
jasperjava Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 5:51 pm
I agree with Rocky 100%. this was written for public consumption, with the goal of bamboozling the gullible Republican “values” voters.
July 9th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
Hey, Vegas, this was a PRIVATE letter. I suspect he WAS asking for forgiveness in PRIVATE but some cad made the letter public.
Well, the ‘cad’ was the man he cuckolded (thanks for bringing that word into the Liberaland lexicon, Kregg – it IS a great word), but yea – we agree the newspapers, and Alan, should show a bit more class and not make it available to the world.
4moreyears Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
THANKS Alan,
Lots to lear here. I learned that Nevadans are very generous in how they compensate their Republican senators (maybe it is time to take that extra senator away).
And I learned that I can’t really afford the Promisekeepers if it costs $25k to have sex with your employees wife.
Here’s what I learned Harry Reid had to say “I think it is much easier to be a good member of the Church and a Democrat than a good member of the Church and a Republican.” He went on to say that the Democrats’ emphasis on helping others, as opposed to what he considers Republican dogma to the contrary, is the reason he’s a Democrat.”
Ensign apparently just kind of “helped himself” to his employees wife.
Kregg Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
4 said: Ensign apparently just kind of “helped himself” to his employees wife.
K: Of course he did. She didn’t have any say in the matter, I’m sure.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 2:07 am
4MoreYears…when did Reid say that…I heard him say that but in a completly different context.
Kregg Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
Um said: Well, the ‘cad’ was the man he cuckolded (thanks for bringing that word into the Liberaland lexicon, Kregg – it IS a great word), but yea – we agree the newspapers, and Alan, should show a bit more class and not make it available to the world.
K: I agree. Now, I can certainly sympathize with the husband but he’s still a cad for publishing the letter. And, again, you are right, Alan is also a cad for perpetuating public snooping and voyeurism into private issues.
Kregg Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
And, Ensign is a cad also. The dictionary definition of cad – “a man who behaves dishonorably, esp. toward a woman”.
EricG Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
Kregg – “And, Ensign is a cad also. The dictionary definition of cad – “a man who behaves dishonorably, esp. toward a woman”.”
How honorable was Newt Gringrich when he called Sonia Sotomayor a racist?
Kregg Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 10:30 pm
Eric said: How honorable was Newt Gringrich when he called Sonia Sotomayor a racist?
K: I don’t know. If she IS a racist it wasn’t a dishonorable thing at all – but the truth.
TDro319 Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
K: “Alan is also a cad for perpetuating public snooping and voyeurism into private issues.”
TD: And like a moth to a flame, you are drawn here to get off on Alan’s “public snooping and voyeurism”. Methinks you are into that sort of thing. But hey! To each his own.
Kregg Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 10:31 pm
TD said: And like a moth to a flame, you are drawn here to get off on Alan’s “public snooping and voyeurism”. Methinks you are into that sort of thing. But hey! To each his own.
K: And, like a gnat in an ear, you buzz around not really saying anything…
TDro319 Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
K: “And, like a gnat in an ear, you buzz around not really saying anything…”
TD: Sez you! At least I know you come here to sastify your lust for public snooping and voyerism
EricG Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 5:49 pm
” and Alan, should show a bit more class and not make it available to the world.”
Look, it does not work that way.
If he doesn’t run it, post it, say it … then someone else will.
It’s the nature of all the media.
And if you look around the airwaves, you’ll find that Alan is a total nice guy compared to everyone else in terms of his website and his show.
He posts it. And if he didn’t then TMZ and some random bloggers could then repost – repost – repost!
So there’s no escaping it.
—
But that Sanford email was downright CREEPY! Freaky, creepy, icky, ….
just keep in mind those words and that’s what I think of reading this stuff … it still enters the news-sphere all the same
July 9th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
This doesn’t help make me think of him as very smart. What knucklehead in todays world would even write such a self-incriminating letter? Gees, and this guy is suppose to lead us?
Kregg Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
Budda said: This doesn’t help make me think of him as very smart. What knucklehead in todays world would even write such a self-incriminating letter? Gees, and this guy is suppose to lead us?
K: I don’t know, one of your guys had an intern between his legs WHILE he was actually ‘leading’ us and it didn’t seem to bother ya’ll at all…
Budda Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
Did he write a letter to her admitting everything? Some guys are smarter then others.
Kregg Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
Budda said: Did he write a letter to her admitting everything? Some guys are smarter then others.
K: Didn’t he already publicly admit to everything in the letter? If so, there was nothing to hide by writing a letter of apology. In my book this guy’s pretty classy for owning up to his mistakes and humbling himself to make an apology. Kind of unlike your guy who committed a felony by lying while trying to cover up his actions. BTW, I don’t think I’ve ever heard an apology from your guy to the young intern he subjected to slashing public scrutiny and derision just so he could get his jollies.
Budda Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
I thought this was about Ensign, not ancient history.
Kregg Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
Budda said: I thought this was about Ensign, not ancient history.
K: So, in 15 years Ensign won’t have gone out on his wife? Facts don’t change with age, Budda. You don’t seem to be offended by Billy Clinton’s having an intern check his privates in the oval office but you are offended by this guy apologizing for a mutual affair. Why not? And, how does ‘ancient history’ reduce the stupidity of Clinton’s actions?
Budda Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
I understand your wanting to deflect the discussion away from the Family Values, PromiseKeepers Republican, but this thread is about Ensign. You want to rehash the Clinton/Monica thing go ahead, but maybe somewhere else.
EricG Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 6:02 pm
“And, how does ‘ancient history’ reduce the stupidity of Clinton’s actions?”
It doesn’t. The issue from more than a decade ago was if it rose to the level of impeachment proceedings. And all people who are not complete party animals can see it was not warranted to start impeaching him. Yet the Republicans get everything they want and some spinster will defend them for their misdeeds for all time.
Focusing on Clinton denotes an unwillingness to address the very real issue of the moral caliber of ANY person who sells themselves to the public as a ‘holy’ person and a ‘family values’ figure.
Kregg Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 10:23 pm
Budda said: I understand your wanting to deflect the discussion away from the Family Values, PromiseKeepers Republican, but this thread is about Ensign. You want to rehash the Clinton/Monica thing go ahead, but maybe somewhere else.
K: Not at all. I”m not interested in deflecting anything. I’m simply pointing out that for all the hoopla over this Ensign guy and all the ridicule heaped upon him it seems to me that no one on this board EVER put down Clinton for committing felonies during HIS affair in the way they’re piling on this guy. This stuff is bad. It should be ridiculed. Libs who do it should be ridiculed as much and as often as Cons that do it are ridiculed. But they’re not. Why?
Kregg Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 10:25 pm
Eric said: It doesn’t. The issue from more than a decade ago was if it rose to the level of impeachment proceedings. And all people who are not complete party animals can see it was not warranted to start impeaching him
K: Take 20; Again, Clinton was not impeached for sex in the oval office, Eric. He was impeached for committing a felony by lying to a judge about his affair. Are you capable of assimilating that truth?
Um Cara Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 10:30 pm
Libs who do it should be ridiculed as much and as often as Cons that do it are ridiculed. But they’re not. Why?
You honestly don’t think Clinton caught any grief w/ regards to Monica?
It is very old news (but you have brought him up several times recently) – but nailing an intern is sleezy for a mid level corporate hack, I wouldn’t do it. It is even sleezier for the president of the United States. It is criminal to lie under oath.
Clinton was made fun of. Clinton was criticized. Clinton was impeached.
I’d say he caught much, much more grief than this Ensign goober.
But seriously, move on. Clinton hasn’t been president for a good while, he isn’t topical.
Get over him.
Kregg Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 10:42 pm
K prv: Libs who do it should be ridiculed as much and as often as Cons that do it are ridiculed. But they’re not. Why?
Um said: You honestly don’t think Clinton caught any grief w/ regards to Monica?
K: My comments were directed toward members of this board giving Clinton a pass for doing the same thing this string of Republican idiots has done but rising up in moral outrage over these guys.
U: It is very old news (but you have brought him up several times recently) – but nailing an intern is sleezy for a mid level corporate hack, I wouldn’t do it. It is even sleezier for the president of the United States. It is criminal to lie under oath.
K: And, that is easily as repugnant as these guys but Clinton gets a pass while these guys get excoriated.
U: Clinton was made fun of. Clinton was criticized. Clinton was impeached.
K: Not by the upstanding citizens on this board.
U: I’d say he caught much, much more grief than this Ensign goober.
K: Again, not from this board.
U; But seriously, move on. Clinton hasn’t been president for a good while, he isn’t topical. Get over him.
K: Its not a matter of ‘moving on’ but of making a point no one wants to acknowledge. This stuff is red meat only if its Republican to folks on this board. I”m wondering why they are so selectively morally outraged.
Um Cara Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 10:48 pm
Not by the upstanding citizens on this board.
I don’t think the vast majority of the citizens of this board were citizens of this board when Clinton/Lewinsky was topical, so who knows.
Time tends to diminish outrage, heck I hardly ever browbeat Republicans for not beating up on Nixon with regularity.
As for myself, I was thoroughly angry and disappointed with Clinton, and still wouldn’t ask him to mentor my 19 year old daughter (if I had one) – but I just don’t consider him topical. I suspect many other citizens of this board do not either, let’s wait for some new horndog Democrat and judge reactions then.
Kregg Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 11:49 am
Um said: I suspect many other citizens of this board do not either, let’s wait for some new horndog Democrat and judge reactions then.
K: You think Alan will make the same issue over a Dem doing it that he has over a Repub doing it? I doubt it…
Um Cara Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 5:52 pm
You think Alan will make the same issue over a Dem doing it that he has over a Repub doing it? I doubt it…
Well, he has in the past, even when it was the guy he was supporting for the Democratic presidential nomination.
So, I’ll say yes. Yes he will.
TDro319 Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
Billy Clinton didn’t go around vilifying republicans for their “immoral behavior” either.
I don’t care that Ensign had an affair. I have a problem with him preaching the evils of adultery – you know, much like Newt “family values guy” Gingrich did.
July 9th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
Man…
Well, Im not a guy that takes “sin” very seriously. Really. I think its a construction of occidental society, that it has good moral grounds but I also know that if those bases arent revised within time, then they can become useless (like all those passages in the levitic that forbid a whole array of things for no reason that would appeal to this modern world).
Having said this I dont take a letter where the guy says: okay, I was wrong *because* it is a sin, as a serious show of remorse.
You were wrong because you LIED to your wife and kids who wouldn’t have accepted you to have another girl around (and hey, there are plenty families nowdays that allow themselves to be open in that aspect).
You sir, are a liar, which I take to be not only a “sin” (which is irrelevant to me), but a sociopathic trait in a person.
Much more so than being against adultery, being honest is a Universal Value because ALL religious and moral systems throughout the history of humanity take it to be a fundamental moral and ethical value (from the religious sphere, but also from the most rationalist ethological sphere like Descartes, Spinoza and Nietzche), whereas there are legitimate and ancient cultures and religions that think polygamy is a-ok!.
So I’m all for universal values and, from that standpoint, I think this gentelman is still lying when he expresses remorse for the lesser sin (adultery), but fails to acknowledge the perversity of his lies.
This guy is a liar and such a good one that he has himself fooled.
pizzaman Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 6:35 pm
Alex:
Although I disagree with your notion that LYING about having committed adultery is worse than ADULTERY ITSELF, I will concede that lying UNDER OATH about adultery in order to deny a woman her rights in a suit against you is seriously wrong. In fact, it’s criminal.
I agree with EricG that “ANY person who sells themselves to the public as a ‘holy’ person” is foolishly on thin ice. Not the same, though, as to those who campaign for “family values.” The fact that we sin doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t advocate right action, does it? If it did, then no one would have standing to advocate right action.
pizzaman
trees are people too Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 6:55 pm
Nicely said, Pizzaman.
Um Cara Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 6:59 pm
Hey, Trees, Pizzaman, and myself all agree!
hrm.. maybe it IS the end of times?
alex Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 8:06 pm
“I agree with EricG that “ANY person who sells themselves to the public as a ‘holy’ person” is foolishly on thin ice. ”
I completely agree, our points are one and the same: a person who puts him/her self in this situation is going to be lying at some point.
July 9th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
Personally I am sick and tired of all the coverage related to adulterous affairs of politicans or anyone else for that matter.
keep it up and not a single sane minded person will EVER want to serve in public office.
Kregg Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
Hey, Bliss, lighten up. Alan gets off on this sort of stuff. Prejean’s breasts, Sanford’s lover, and now Ensign’s letter of apology. It may be the only love life he has… ;-)
blissfulconservative Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
I notice he hasn’t posted anything about the SS adminstration sending hundres of their employees on a luxurious getaway in ARIZONA on our dime.
What happened to personal responsibility?? does it only apply to PRIVATE agencies?
Kregg Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
No, only to Republicans…
TDro319 Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
K: ” Alan gets off on this sort of stuff. Prejean’s breasts, Sanford’s lover, and now Ensign’s letter of apology. It may be the only love life he has… ;-)”
TD: And Kregg must get off on it also. After all, he’s always here whining about Alan’s posts.
Epiphany Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
Damn, TDro, I was just going to say that. lol.
Kregg Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 10:16 pm
Yeah, THAT was an original statement! I can see how you’d both be tempted to fight over it… ;-)
alex Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 6:50 pm
Well it is quite funny that those selling themselves as the “moral” ones are caught in acts that they themselves deem abhorrent.
Its like, well, one would’ve expected this from Clinton, who even admited to smoking marihuana (but never inhaled…ha!) and has lax morals. But when you see it on right wing representatives (not only in the US, mind you, the ultra-catholic Spanish “Popular Party” truly brings me joy when I check out their news) the act itself gains a bit of morbid pleasure to criticize.
EricG Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 5:42 pm
“Personally I am sick and tired of all the coverage related to adulterous affairs of politicans or anyone else for that matter.”
I am tired of hearing about Bill Clinton.
He does matter. It’s old news. No one cares. It’s not relevant.
Yet that’s what everyone says for their classic example of a typical Democrat on the right.
I think Sanford and Ensign should be the new tocket for the Republicans. Just run with the immorality! Just run for office WHILE cheating and lying and being a amoral monster! That’s what they are anyway.
Kregg Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 10:12 pm
Eric said: I think Sanford and Ensign should be the new tocket for the Republicans. Just run with the immorality! Just run for office WHILE cheating and lying and being a amoral monster! That’s what they are anyway.
K: Yup, then they’d be just like Clinton… ;-)
July 9th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
melt down in crackerville
July 9th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
[...] with tax rules governing gifts.” This new revelation appears to be designed to head of questions about whether or not Ensign violated federal laws by failing to report what Doug Hampton called a [...]
July 9th, 2009 at 7:16 pm
it actually sounds like he’s going through sexaholics anonymous (again what is sexahol)
some of the verbage he uses is consistent with 12 step programs, as well as the notion of personally apologizing, especially through a hand-written letter if it is not possible to meet them face to face, and I doubt Doug would be keen on him and Cindy meeting face to face.
I don’t think he meant for this to become public (yet was probably braced for the possibility that it could be leaked)
Invoking God is a christian thing to do, I think all parties involved are christian so nothing he said is out of line.
July 10th, 2009 at 2:13 am
“Eric said: How honorable was Newt Gringrich when he called Sonia Sotomayor a racist?
K: I don’t know. If she IS a racist it wasn’t a dishonorable thing at all – but the truth.
”
Hmmm…if telling the truth wouldnt make Newt Gringrich a cad, what was so cad-dy about the husband revealing the letters?Wasnt it true that his wife was having an affair with mentioned person?
Kregg Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 11:44 am
Kar said: Hmmm…if telling the truth wouldnt make Newt Gringrich a cad, what was so cad-dy about the husband revealing the letters?Wasnt it true that his wife was having an affair with mentioned person?
K: IMO, publishing such a private letter in a newspaper so millions of people could get their voyeuristic jollies is caddish. Please remember that his wife willingly participated in the affair and he is exposing her involvement beyond what I believe a loving husband would do.
July 10th, 2009 at 10:36 am
This whole sordid thing just reaffirms my contention that most politicians are sociopaths who don’t care about the difference between right and wrong. The rest are fools who can’t figure it out. But it is rather funny to watch them hand-grenade from time to time.
July 10th, 2009 at 5:45 pm